Theater of Disorder: Patients, Doctors, and the Construction of Illness
BMJ 2002; 324 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7348.1282 (Published 25 May 2002) Cite this as: BMJ 2002;324:1282
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Sir,
It is very hard to judge whether Dr. Sean A. Spence's book review [1]
really is "shockingly irresponsible" as Jeffrey A Schaler claims [2] just
because he fails to mention the published works of Thomas Szasz.
For example, he may not like Thomas Szasz or may disagree profoundly
with his point of view. It may not simply be "incompetence" [2] or
"deliberate omission," [1] in the scarey sense that Schaler implies. In
any case, go easy on Spence, who did not write the book, he merely
reviewed it.
To temper slightly this immoderate and inexplicable enthusiasm for
Thomas Szasz, Jeffrey A Schaler might be persuaded to carefully examine
some of the comments of others about Dr Szasz and his thoroughly ambiguous
publications about "the myth of mental illness". For example:
"As usual he has relied on a distorted presentation of reality to
maintain his extreme views about the non-existence of mental illness," [3]
"I share some of Szasz’s concerns about the increasing medicalisation
of society and social problems, but he does no service to this view by
resting his findings on spurious arguments," [3]
In the light of such opinions of Szasz [3], by professionals working
in the same field, Szasz's own views often appear ambiguous to the point
of being incomprehensible to many people. In which case, Spence's
"shockingly irresponsible...deliberate omission" [2] may in fact turn out
to have been more of a sound judgement afterall.
Nor should anybody's "numerous publications" [2] necessarily blind
one to a more sober analysis of their real quality in the 'wheat winnowed
from chaff' sense.
Sources
[1] Book: Theater of Disorder: Patients, Doctors, and the
Construction of Illness Sean A Spence (25 May 2002)
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7348/1282
[2] Whatever happened to intellectual integrity? 29 May 2002, BMJ
letter, Jeffrey A Schaler
http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters?lookup=by_date&days=1#22655
[3] Actions speak louder than words 3 September 2001, BMJ letter,
Simon Wilson,
http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/323/7311/511/a#16391
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dr. Sean A. Spence's book review of "Theater of Disorder: Patients,
Doctors, and the Construction of Illness" by Brant Wenegrat (May 25), is
shockingly irresponsible.
A clinical senior lecturer in psychiatry, Spence characterizes
Wenegrat's book as a "bold, intellectual tour de force." This opinion
verges on declaring the discovery of the wheel in A.D. 2002 as a bold new
innovation. For more than forty years, Thomas Szasz, M.D. has written
about how mental illness is a myth, a strategy, a form of acting – often
executed by disenfranchised persons and validated as a bona fide disease
by mental health professionals. If Spence’s failure to acknowledge
Szasz’s pioneering work – for which he has received more obloquy than
praise – is due to ignorance, then it is a symptom of his incompetence,
regrettable but forgiveable. If, on the other hand, it is the result of
deliberate omission, then it is his moral duty to explain his reasons for
it to the readers of this journal.
Enter the words "Thomas Szasz" in a search engine on the world wide
web and one immediately arrives at www.szasz.com, which contains a wealth
of information by and about Szasz and his numerous publications
(http://www.szasz.com/publist.html).
Jeffrey A. Schaler, Ph.D.
School of Public Affairs,
American University,
Washington, DC
jschale@american.edu
Competing interests: No competing interests
A Neurologist seconds Schaler
Jeffrey Schaler is correct to protest the silent treatment accorded
Dr. Thomas Szasz, and not only by the author and reviewer in question.
As a practicing neurologist for the past 25 years I rely on Dr. Szasz
analyses every single day to sort out real neurologic disease from the
epidemic of imaginary ones concocted by psychiatry every day and swallowed
whole by patients and colleagues alike.
The powerful truths articulated by Dr. Szasz are far from ambiguous.
On the contrary: he is utterly transparent: a mind can't have a disease
because a mind is not a thing and a disease is.
Can anything be more clear?
Very truly,
John Friedberg, M.D.
Competing interests: No competing interests